IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.6281/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mrs. Philomena @ Mrs. Philomena Lourd Marry, Aged about 80 years, W/o Late Mr. Joseph, No.11, Old Cement Lane, Austin Town, Bengaluru – 560 047. … Petitioner (By Sri K.S. Periyaswamy, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Circle, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 002.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Shanthinagar Sub-Division, Public Utility Building, M.G. Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondents (By Sri H. Devendrappa, Advocate for R1 & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 to register the sale deed in respect of the BBMP Quarters No.11, Old Cement Lane, Austin Town, Bengaluru – 560 047 in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-A, This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner being a senior citizen aged about 80 years, has filed the present petition seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondent no.2 to register the sale deed in respect of BBMP Quarters No.11, Old Cement Lane, Austin Town, Bengaluru-560 047, in favour of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner submits that the father-in-law of the petitioner was residing in Quarters No.11, situated at Old Cement Lane, Austin Town. It is stated that as per the Government Order dated 18.05.1978, the person in occupation of the residential tenements in Ward No.71 and 76 of Austin Town were permitted to pay the consideration and upon such payment, sale deed was to be executed in favour of the said occupants. In the light of said Government Order, the respondent- BBMP had issued notice to the father-in-law of the petitioner Mr. Nathan dated 24.04.2006 calling upon him to exercise option by paying necessary consideration before 09.06.2006. It is further submitted that the said Nathan passed away in the year 1975.
3. In fact, in the copy of the notice at Annexure-‘B’, the name of the petitioner is also mentioned. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the notice at Annexure-‘B’, the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.14,404/- on 28.04.2006 and copy of the receipt is enclosed at Annexure-‘C’. It is not in dispute that payment has been made within the time prescribed as per Annexure-‘B’, and receipt also records the name of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for respondent-BBMP submits that the documents relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure-‘B’ and ‘C’ are not in dispute. However, there is no satisfactory explanation as regards non-taking of action on the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-‘A’.
5. Considering that the facts are not in dispute and that the records and material on record prima facie would indicate that respondent-BBMP would be required to execute the Sale Deed as referred to in Annexure-‘B’, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-‘A’ and dispose of the same in the light of observations made hereinabove.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-BBMP to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders as expeditiously as possible taking note of the fact that petitioner is a lady aged about 80 years. The said process is to be completed within a period not later than four weeks from today. It is also made clear that while considering the representation at Annexure-‘A’, the petitioner to furnish such other documents and information as may be required by the respondent- BBMP. The petitioner is also directed to furnish a fresh representation on the same lines as that of Annexure-‘A’ with any additional information as may be necessary forthwith.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-